Kirsten Dunst Offends Feminism by Upholding Value of Women

It’s time to wave the feminism flag. Because apparently praising valuable role of women as nurturers means you want to go back to the days when it was supposedly okay to beat women, deny them voting rights, and keep them from getting a job. So naturally, we should be out for Kirsten Dunst’s head.

In the U.K. edition of Harpers Bazaar magazine (let us all nod and pretend we have the slightest inkling what that is), Kirsten Dunst made some “controversial” comments. What was so controversial? See for yourself:

“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued. We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking – it’s a valuable thing my mum created. And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armour. I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work.”

Can’t you just feel the bigotry and sexism oozing from the pages? No? Well, you can at least see it, right? No?

Old-fashioned, woman-hating bigot.

I’m not going to bore you with a long, drawn-out exposition on the incompatible attributes of feminism and Christianity. I will admit that there are some valuable traits of the inception of feminism. Women should have the right to vote. They should be able to get a job. However, God created two sexes for a reason. The feminine and the masculine are beautiful the way God created them. God also created roles for each of these.

“And so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.” – Titus 2:4-5

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” – 1 Timothy 5:8

God clearly has roles for each of these genders. They are beautiful. They are both to be valued. Neither role is more important than the other. If both are masculine (and the modern feminism movement is pushing for a more masculine woman), and you don’t have the feminine nurturing presence in the home, it’s not the same. The home doesn’t work like it was designed to.

So why criticize Kirsten Dunst for this statement? I don’t know what she’s like as a person. I don’t know if she has a faith of any kind, or what her beliefs are. But I know that her statements were in line with scripture, promoting values that are at least mutual. The response? She must be stupid, according to feminist Erin Gloria Ryan:

“I’m not going to couch this much because Kirsten Dunst is not paid to write gender theory so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’s kind of dumb about it.”

So because someone values women for their unique traits that are either not found in men or often found lacking in men, then she’s obviously unintelligent and ignorant in regards to gender.

Let’s forget about the fact that she is a woman. No. She doesn’t know anything. Only someone who’s bought the propaganda from modern feminism is intelligent in regards to this topic.

I applaud her for having the guts to say this in a magazine interview. She probably knew this was going to happen. It takes guts to speak truth when you know a backlash is going to come as a result. May we have the same courage.

Have you head about the backlash towards actress Shailene Woodley? She said did not consider herself a feminist for several reasons, thought that there should balance & mutual respect between the two sexes (similar to what Dunst said), and said that she prefers “sisterhood.”

I had not heard about that, that’s very cool. There are people in Hollywood that are on the right side of these issues, but the public crucifixion that follows keeps many of them from speaking out about it. Granted, I do believe that they are in the minority, but times like this show that they do exist.

Great article, I’ll be sure to save this blog.
It’s sad to see that decent and respectable women (and men) are being lashed out at, just because they refuse to follow the parade of sour, hateful narcissists.
I wonder what’s wrong with someone who thinks that you need to be bitter and nasty just to respect yourself? How their children, family and friends must suffer.

It always gives me hope to see that some people out there are not only decent, but coherent enough to talk and write about their views

Thanks for your comment, John. I’m not entirely certain why our culture has ended up this way, but it is encouraging to see that there are some who are willing to be frank about the beautifully unique roles of men and women in the middle of it.

I think Kirsten was just saying that there are choices in feminism. And what’s wrong with choosing to be a nurturer? Has the role of nurturer been undervalued? I think she’s right. North American Indians saw the value of both male and female contributions to the community. They brought different things to the table. Both were valued.

It’s this culture that undermines the value of the nurturer.

Feminism is about choices and there is not one model to follow. You are jumping the gun when you interpret her statement to mean that women shouldn’t work or be totally dependent on a man. Look at her, she’s successful in her own right.

I never said that she was intending to say that women shouldn’t work; in fact, she says in the quote that “we all have to work” and so forth. But her point about the feminine qualities that her mother provided is the point. I was using what she said and expanding it to talk about how our culture has undervalued feminine qualities as a whole.

As to being multiple models to follow, it’s important to keep in mind that in the Christian worldview, God has created specific roles for the two sexes. There are possible variations within that plan, but it is necessary, in the Christian worldview, to stay within that plan. But it seems like if we even mention the benefits of that, somehow we’re promoting sexism, or in the case of Erin Gloria Ryan, we’re just plain dumb.